[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] RE: alpha v0.3
- To: idn@ops.ietf.org
- Subject: Re: [idn] RE: alpha v0.3
- From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 09:11:27 -0800
- Delivery-date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 09:11:33 -0800
- Envelope-to: idn-data@psg.com
At 05:44 PM 2/4/00 +0100, Karlsson Kent - keka wrote:
>Can we cut down on this please: 'shall', 'shall not', 'should',
>and 'should not' ought to be enough. I don't see why having
>'must', 'shall', and 'required' would all be needed. Similarly
>for 'should' and 'recommended'. 'Must not' (and 'may not') have
>lingustic issues, and should never be used in formal documents.
RFC 2119 says that the wording that is in the current pre-draft should be
used in documents that refer to RFC 2119.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium